Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: ratings are aggregated only from KYA-verified agents and KYA levels are live, which tells the agent how much to trust the numbers. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or result caps for a list operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the resource and what each result carries, then filters, then a copy-paste example — a sensible order. The field enumeration is somewhat list-heavy but each item (KYC level, permissions, ratings) is decision-relevant for an agent choosing a resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it spends most of its length doing so. The real gaps for a zero-required-parameter list tool remain unfilled: behavior with no filters (does it return everything?), result limits, and ordering. Adequate but incomplete for the invocation decision.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% — the `type` enum has no schema description and `query` is only 'Search text'. The description compensates: it names the enum values (app or skill) and specifies that the query is matched against names and summaries, which the schema does not say. Minor omission of the 200-char limit and matching behavior beyond names/summaries.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource ('List published apps and skills in the Rightshold Store') plus an enumeration of the returned fields (vetting tier, publisher KYA level, permissions, ratings). It is clearly distinguishable in substance from siblings like check_license or kya_lookup, though it never names an alternative explicitly. Clear but not sibling-differentiated by name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains the filter mechanics ('Filter with type (app or skill) and a plain-text query matched against names and summaries') and supplies a concrete invocation example. However, there is no statement of when to reach for this versus registry_lookup, list_toolsets, or check_listing, and no note on what calling with no filters does.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.